Editorial: Do attack ads create apathy?

Published: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 08:21 PM.

While experts studying voting trends note that primary election turnout overall is down from 2010, North Carolina is one of the few states that has bucked the trend. That isn’t as good as it sounds.

Why? Because over the years, participation in primary elections has been declining nationwide. And even as North Carolina managed to increase its turnout in the May primary, just under 16 percent of registered voters bothered to weigh in — despite the fact that all political parties allow independent voters to cast ballots in primary races.

According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University in Washington, primary election participation has been going down for the better part of 50 years. Back then, candidate selection often was a process of smoke-filled backrooms and cronyism.

Opening political party primaries to independent voters should, in concept, be more likely to produce candidates who appeal to a broader voter base. That only works if people vote.

There are many theories about why turnout has continued to decline — among them a growing apathy fueled by distrust and disinterest in the governing process.

Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, also sees a connection between lack of motivation and attack ads that reflect badly not only on the target, but also at the candidate they are meant to bolster. Many of those ads are run by groups that operate independently of political campaigns (although in some cases they operate out of the same set of offices). Candidates technically have no control over the content of those ads, but they could build credibility — and win over voters — by vocally denouncing the practice.

One bright example is emerging in the race for an open seat on the N.C. Supreme Court. The race pits two Court of Appeals judges against one another: Sam Ervin IV, a Democrat, and Republican Bob Hunter. While the election is technically nonpartisan, both parties can be expected to weigh in with their preference. But Doug Clark, editorial page editor of the Greensboro News & Record, reports that Hunter went on record as saying he will not stand for any ads that attempt to defame or vilify his colleague and friend, Ervin. Candidates that refuse to denounce such tactics, in effect, become just as complicit in perpetuating these types of third-party ads that reflect badly on the candidates and the electoral process.

While experts studying voting trends note that primary election turnout overall is down from 2010, North Carolina is one of the few states that has bucked the trend. That isn’t as good as it sounds.

Why? Because over the years, participation in primary elections has been declining nationwide. And even as North Carolina managed to increase its turnout in the May primary, just under 16 percent of registered voters bothered to weigh in — despite the fact that all political parties allow independent voters to cast ballots in primary races.

According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University in Washington, primary election participation has been going down for the better part of 50 years. Back then, candidate selection often was a process of smoke-filled backrooms and cronyism.

Opening political party primaries to independent voters should, in concept, be more likely to produce candidates who appeal to a broader voter base. That only works if people vote.

There are many theories about why turnout has continued to decline — among them a growing apathy fueled by distrust and disinterest in the governing process.

Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, also sees a connection between lack of motivation and attack ads that reflect badly not only on the target, but also at the candidate they are meant to bolster. Many of those ads are run by groups that operate independently of political campaigns (although in some cases they operate out of the same set of offices). Candidates technically have no control over the content of those ads, but they could build credibility — and win over voters — by vocally denouncing the practice.

One bright example is emerging in the race for an open seat on the N.C. Supreme Court. The race pits two Court of Appeals judges against one another: Sam Ervin IV, a Democrat, and Republican Bob Hunter. While the election is technically nonpartisan, both parties can be expected to weigh in with their preference. But Doug Clark, editorial page editor of the Greensboro News & Record, reports that Hunter went on record as saying he will not stand for any ads that attempt to defame or vilify his colleague and friend, Ervin. Candidates that refuse to denounce such tactics, in effect, become just as complicit in perpetuating these types of third-party ads that reflect badly on the candidates and the electoral process.

Turnout in “off” year elections such as 2014 is generally lower than in years in which we elect a president; however, much of the real governing is done much closer to home. As November approaches, remember that the closer the election is to where you live, the greater impact your vote will have; so, pay attention to the these state and local candidates and be sure to vote.

A version of this editorial first appeared in the Wilmington Star-News, a Halifax Media Group newspaper.